Yet Gates said it’s important not to get too caught up in the emotions following a terrorist attack.
Advertisement
The dozen phones were captured in various criminal investigations across the USA but unlike the San Bernardino investigation, no terrorism charges are involved, the WSJ noted. And by “a bunch”, we mean hundreds of phones that the company could suddenly be compelled to compromise. “A lot of the families of the victims, we’re kind of angry and confused as to why Apple is refusing to do this”.
“The security of many should always supersede the privacy of one”, Azoulay-Mare said.
The county-issued iPhone 5C was used by Syed Farook, who with his wife, Tashfeen Malik, killed 14 people at an office holiday party in December before they died in a gun battle with police. The government said they had been at least partly inspired by the Islamic State. The FBI wants to gain information from a terrorist’s phone to potentially discover information about the terrorist’s contacts which could lead to further intelligence gathering.
Fewer Americans – 38 percent – said Apple should fight the court’s order and preserve the security of users’ information, Pew reported.
San Bernardino County had bought the technology, known as mobile device management from MobileIron Inc., but never installed it on any of the inspectors’ phones, including Farook’s, said county spokesman David Wert said.
Gates also told the Financial Times that, as the newspaper put it, there are “benefits to the government being able to enforce taxation, stop crime and investigate terror threats, but said there must be rules on when the information can be accessed”. Meanwhile, the government has actively solicited victims of the shooting to join its case against Apple.
Another expert, Mark Bartholomew, a professor specializing in cyberlaw at SUNY Buffalo, said Apple may have a compelling case arguing that it would be unfair to force it to make its devices less secure, though it’s not clear whether courts would agree that Congress should decide the matter. “It makes me question their interest in the safety of this country”. Similarly, he said that people shouldn’t act to quickly after revelations of government abuse, such as when Edward Snowden revealed the scope of the NSA’s bulk collection. That’s not what the Federal Bureau of Investigation is pursuing in this case, he said.
Supporters are expected to demonstrate in 50 different apple stores across the USA, at five-p-m local time. Eleven percent did not offer an opinion. The telephone survey was conducted February 18 through February 21 among 1,002 adults. FBI Director James Comey wrote Sunday, “We don’t want to break anyone’s encryption or set a master key loose on the land”.
Using the software even once could give authorities or outsiders new clues to how Apple’s security features work, potentially exposing vulnerabilities that could be exploited in the future, Ackerly said. The bipartisan pair is scheduled to unveil details of legislation that would create a panel at a Washington event on Wednesday.
In a Friday filing, the Justice Department claimed that Apple refused to comply with last week’s court order “appears to be based on its concern for its business model and public brand marketing strategy”. The billionaire Microsoft cofounder’s comments came after he was asked whether he thought Apple was right to resist the USA government’s demand that it unlock an iPhone belonging to one of the two attackers in last year’s San Bernardino mass shooting.
Advertisement
In particular, he took issue with Apple CEO Tim Cook’s argument that helping crack the shooter’s iPhone would set a broader precedent.
